eugene

Let's take a look at a seemingly innocent practice of OCSP stapling. Basically it is a certification that your certificate is valid, with the certificate for the validity of your certificate being issued by your certificate authority and bundled with your original certificate. Sounds perfect! If only we could certify the validity of this second certificate too, with a third certificate issued by the same authority, would be enough, certainly, three certificates are enough for everyone. Right?

This practice stems from OSCP (an Internet protocol used for obtaining the revocation status) which is not nearly as funny, and far from «innocent».

The original OCSP implementation can introduce a significant cost for the certificate authorities (CA) because it requires them to provide responses to every client of a given certificate in real time. For example, when a certificate is issued to a high traffic website, the servers of CAs are likely to be hit by enormous volumes of OCSP requests querying the validity of the certificate.

Do you see what does this quote imply? That FOR EACH SSL CONNECTION YOU MUST ASK THE AUTHORITY'S PERMISSION. The certificate authority is now an authority that decides whether to allow or refuse your SSL connections. In real time. You no longer decide to connect to a host of your choice, this decision is moving to some authorities.

Let that sink in.

====
P.S. Certificate revocation (without SSL) is not that dangerous and absurd. It was initially designed to work OFFLINE, i.e. all certificates, requests and answers are strictly timestamped — which makes revocation lists valuable and transferable — this is all designed to post-factum verification of documents and such.

Amendment 28

The U.S. govt has no right to interfere with any aspect of public education, neither institutionalized nor irregular. It is prohibited for the govt to fund a school, advertise education services, impose standards or requirements in any way related to public education, limit educational activities in any way shape or form (for example: by demanding licensing).

Amendment 29

A teacher has an absolute, unrestricted, unalienable right to choose his students as he sees fit. A teacher is free to enroll and dismiss students on a whim at any time without answering to anyone or explaining his motives. The right of a teacher to freely select his students can not be limited by any institution, this amendment overrides any contractual obligations in this regard.

=================
Simple as that. No more laws and «departments» and «committees» are needed. You can even send your department of education to a re-education camp in Siberia.

And by the way, these two clauses are sufficient to return MALE teachers to the schools.

I am failing to understand four simple things:
why do people always fail to know the limits of their individual reach?
why do people always believe everything authorities say?
why do people always think «it won't happen to us»?
why do people always prefer to lose everything in order to save a part?

All these four shine and glitter as they intricately weave into the topic of «cash vs plastic» (keep them in mind while reading).

It has become a popular fad to use «plastic» instead of cash… as usual people are completely unaware of the dangers of this fad. And for some reason they think that «plastic» is somewhat equivalent to cash — NOT EVEN REMOTELY!

The most important issue is (as usual) the simplest one and (as usual) the most ignored one — WHO COMMITS A TRANSACTION? You come to a store for a loaf of bread, you pay for it and take it away. Are you sure it was you who payed for it? I am sure, because I always use cash. When I give a banknote to a cashier I physically commit the transaction — this is MY FINAL SAY. When you type your PIN, you MERELY ASK a bank to commit the transaction for you. In the end of the day it is the bank's decision whether you gonna have this loaf of bread or not. Think about it for once! The bread you are having now is not a result of a free trade between you and a backer, it is a free will of an (undoubtedly honest) 3rd-party. The bank decided on their own volition to allow you to have this bread, and they can as easily decide to starve you at any time.

And when I am speaking about bread, I literally mean bread. It is a common practice in Ukraine and Russia to arrest bank accounts of family members of political dissidents, thus rendering them incapable of engaging in any trade, i.e. buying bread. When you are under a police investigation for political reasons, you are offered a choice: your family will starve unless you confess that you were digging a tunnel under Kremlin with a premeditated goal to assassinate the dear comrade Stalin. The most famous implementation of this tactics is the Ruslan Kotsaba case, his wife and kids have only survived thanks to the public campaign (launched by the defence attorney) encouraging people to trade with the wife for cash (she is a pastry chief).

But, of course! It can not happen to you! No way! (Ask The Lighthouse Project what methods do courts and prosecutors employ in USA and Canada to exert pressure on falsely accused.)

The banks do not bother with breaching your security, they took away your agency altogether.

Do you, dear public, pay for those schools?
You do… you pay exactly «for» but not «to». The schools actually receive money from the govt, NOT from you. And you have no control over the money distribution. When the money are given to the schools they don't bear your scent anymore — these are «govt's money» at the moment. The govt decides who takes the money, and for these money, a school has to appease the govt, NOT you. These «public» schools are indeed the govt's schools.

— I have all three web browsers installed and I actively use all of them.
— WHY?! you are not a web-developer you do not need all of them.
— I need, I really do: when the antivirus blocks my Chrome, I have to use FF, and when it blocks FF, then I have to launch Opera.

Dear mr. Thunderf00t, recently you have published a series of videos about melting gold in strange contraptions (or one might say «stupid setups»). This series culminated in the episode called «Will Burning Diamond Melt Gold?». I quote:

Gold melts at 1064 C, Diamond burns at 2700 C — this should be enough to melt gold, will a diamond melt gold?

Then you put a ~0.25g diamond on a 1g golden coin, ignite the diamond in the pure oxygen atmosphere and wait until the diamond burns a hole in the coin. The diamond burned happily to ashes and the coin remained intact.

This «failure» created confusion among yourself and your audience:

How so?! It burnt so HOOOOOOOT! and melted nothing...

Spoiler alert: ENERGY TRANSFER.

Given that few days before you successfully melted a bead of gold that was put in a cavity inside a burning graphite block (What a surprise that this contraption worked!), your confusion is legitimately cringeworthy.

FUCKING SHAME!!!

I want you to understand the magnitude of this shame. Mr. Thunderf00t is not only an official scientist like many imbeciles are, he has a real discovery in his portfolio which is an achievement that the Steven Hawking's portfolio lacks of. Mr. Thunderf00t is a real scientist — not a cosmologist or something — he knows his science and he is capable of conducting meaningful experiments. A man of this qualification was driven astray by the notion of temperature. So much astray, that laymen of ancient Egypt would laugh at his «gold melting» contraptions being so obviously against even the most basic common sense understanding of thermodynamics available for humans since 10 000 years ago… 20 000? Once again, pay attention, a credible scientist forgets to calculate the energy balance of his experiment before burning real diamonds.

I therefore propose to remove the notion of temperature from the middle school physics curriculum, for it is overwhelmingly confusing and marginally useful.

P.S.
make a funny experiment:
calculate «the temperature» of a 10 GEv proton, say X (note the amount of zeroes in the result)
and then ask a patented physicist: will a proton heated up to X Celcius deg melt a hole in a thin golden foil.

Picture that: You are a farmer.
You have grown a ton of potato and brought it to a marketplace.
You recon everybody sells potatoes for $1 and you decided to set the price to 0.9 so that you can return home earlier.
Presently, a group of well dressed respectable men with baseball bats approached you:
— Nice potato you have here, good sir. Do you know that the minimum price for potatoes here is $1?

QUESTIONS:
1. do you believe these respectable men helped you sell your potato for a better price?
2. do you wish the minimum price to be set higher (e.g. $1.1)?

Undoubtedly we live in the age of false dichotomies… Somehow people are all talking (and fighting) about subjects with no substance.

Dear vaxxers and anti-vaxxers, your fight is ridiculous, and it is not because you are both partially right, it is because you are both completely wrong.

Have any one of you ever tried to DEFINE the subject of your debate? What do you think a vaccine is? And what to you think the category «vaccines» is? How can you make a utility/risk claim about ALL vaccines, piling together a smallpox vaccine that demonstrably saved the humanity and a flu vaccine that have never entered any testing whatsoever! Do these two share any INNATE properties at all? Can you formulate a property that all vaccines possess on their own, a property that can be observed in the vaccines themselves, all vaccines and nowhere else? This would be a characteristic property that gives you the least moral ground to speak about the «vaccines» as an object (entity). Until then, both of you vaxxers and anti-vaxxers, are engaged into a typical case of false entitification — there is no such entity «vaccines» that you pretend to be talking about. Therefore ANY CLAIM ABOUT ALL VACCINES IS GUARANTEED TO BE WRONG.

But there is still more hilarity in the «debate». Here is a logical scheme of the anti-vaxxer standing:

In a government-run hospital my child was given a shot, that was documented as vaccination. Shortly after the event the child became sick (as never before).

Let's assume we have a sufficient amount of the episodes like that (properly documented («there is no evidence» fanboys can go fuck themselves)).

How is this a reason to blame the sickness on vaccines? Let's control for all other factors… all those kids were perfectly healthy before the injection and so on and so on. If we determine beyond reasonable doubt that the sickness was caused by this particular injection, how is it a reason to blame vaccines? In order to blame vaccines on the ground described above, you must assume that the government-run hospital DID NOT lie to you about the injected substance!!!

So the anti-vaxxers' claim of the vaccines' malice is based upon the trust to the govt! The same govt that under a false pretense of vaccination and medical treatment injected kids with plutonium, gave people syphilis, created a polio outbreak (not even for scientific nor military purposes, just for fun). The govt that has broken the trust of the people over 9000 times, this govt the anti-vaxxers trust! — «govt said it was a vaccine, duh, vaccines are bad» — what a joke!